Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roshanlal vs Jaswant Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:16262) on 27 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16262]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1286/2024
Roshanlal S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Opp. Bsnl
Office, Devgarh, Dist. Rajsamand, Raj. (Lodged In Central Jail
Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Jaswant Singh S/o Kishan Singh, R/o Modawa, Kothariya Road,
Teh. Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
27/03/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 06.04.2024 passed by learned
Addl. Sessions Judge Nathdwara, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
appellate court') by which the appellate court dismissed the
appeal and upheld the judgment dated 23.02.2017 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate Nathdwara, District Rajsamand,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned
trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under
Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo six months'
SI along with fine of Rs.45,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo three months' SI.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
took a loan from the complainant/respondent and in lieu thereof,
the petitioner had given a cheque bearing No.720469 of Punjab
National Bank, Branch Rajsamand for a sum of Rs.28,000/- to the
complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned as
dishonoured by the Bank with the remark of "Insufficient Fund".
[2025:RJ-JD:16262] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1286/2024]
The complainant served a legal notice upon the petitioner through
his advocate and demanded the amount of cheque but the
petitioner did not pay any amount to the complainant.
On the basis of the above complaint, the learned trial court
took cognizance in the matter and ultimately framed charge for
offence under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. The
petitioner denied the charges and claimed for trial. During trial,
the complainant examined himself as witness and got exhibited
certain documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
judgment and order dated 23.02.2017 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2017,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 06.04.2024. Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the
accused petitioner has served three months and fifteen days' of
sentence, out of total sentence of six months, therefore, it is
prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the
aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by him.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction
of the accused-petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:16262] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1286/2024]
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced
to a period of six months' simple imprisonment, however, the
petitioner has so far undergone a period of three months and
fifteen days, out of six months of total sentence, so also suffered
the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the
over-all circumstances and the fact that he has remained behind
the bars for three months and fifteen days, it will be just and
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under
Section 138 of NI Act and affirmed by the appellate court is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The sentence of three
months additional imprisonment awarded in default of payment of
fine/compensation is also waived. So far as the compensation
amount is concerned, the respondent-complainant shall be free to
initiate proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount
before the trial court. The accused-petitioner is in custody and
shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Application for suspension of sentence is also decided
accordingly.
Record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
17-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
